rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-10-20 📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:17:51AM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > And the > > impression I got from the PR review club discussion more seemed like > > devs making assumptions about businesses rather than having talked to > > them (eg "[I] think there are fewer and fewer businesses who absolutely > > cannot survive without relying on zeroconf. Or at least hope so"). > > Even I noticed this since I don't recall the developers of the 3 main coinjoin implementations that are claimed to be impacted by opt-in RBF making any remarks. FYI I personally asked Max Hillebrand from Wasabi about full-rbf last night. He gave me permission to republish our conversation: > Hey, I wanted to know if you had any comments on full-rbf re: wasabi? Doesn't really affect us, afaik The cj doesn't signal rbf right now And I guess it's a DoS vector if any input double spent will be relayed after successful signing But we have way bigger / cheaper DoS vectors that don't get "exploited" So probably doesn't matter Wasabi client handles replacements / reorgs gracefully, so should be alright We don't yet "use" rbf in the sense of fee bumping tx, but we should / will eventually I haven't asked Joinmarket yet. But the impact on their implementation should be very similar. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221020/f687b805/attachment-0001.sig>